Lie detector tests are unreliable

The Travis Walton UFO incident was an alleged alien abduction of an American forestry worker, Travis Walton, by a UFO on November 5, 1975, while he was working in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests near Snowflake, Arizona. Walton reappeared after a five-day search. The Walton case received mainstream publicity and remains one of the best-known alien abduction stories. Skeptics consider it a hoax. Walton wrote a book about his purported abduction in 1978 called The Walton Experience, which was adapted into the 1993 film Fire in the Sky

According to Walton, on November 5, 1975 he was working with a timber stand improvement crew in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest near Snowflake, Arizona. While riding in a truck with six of his coworkers, they encountered a saucer-shaped object hovering over the ground approximately 110 feet away, making a high-pitched buzz. Walton claims that after he left the truck and approached the object, a beam of light suddenly appeared from the craft and knocked him unconscious. The other six men were frightened and supposedly drove away. Walton claimed that he awoke in a hospital-like room, being observed by three short, bald creatures. He claimed that he fought with them until a human wearing a helmet led Walton to another room, where he blacked out as three other humans put a clear plastic mask over his face. Walton has claimed he remembers nothing else until he found himself walking along a highway, with the flying saucer departing above him.

 UFOlogist Jim Ledwith said, “For five days, the authorities thought he’d been murdered by his co-workers, and then he was returned. All of the co-workers who were there, who saw the spacecraft, they all took polygraph tests, and they all passed, except for one, and that one was inconclusive.”

Science and skepticism writer Michael Shermer criticized Walton's claims, saying, "I think the polygraph is not a reliable determiner of truth. I think Travis Walton was not abducted by aliens.

A polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector test, is a device or procedure that measures and records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions.

There are, however, no specific physiological reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate liars from truth tellers. Polygraph examiners also prefer to use their own individual scoring method, as opposed to computerized techniques, as they may more easily defend their own evaluations.

However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.

The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

 assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are inaccurate, may be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.

In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience

 In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection". 

In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."

"polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community"

(a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and

(b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions.

Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies"

there is at present only limited scientific evidence for establishing the validity of polygraph testing. Even where the evidence seems to indicate that polygraph testing detects deceptive subjects better than chance, significant error rates are possible, and examiner and examinee differences and the use of countermeasures may further affect validity.

The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was "unreliable, unscientific and biased"

 "The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".

Daytime talk shows, such as Maury Povich, Jeremy Kyle and Steve Wilkos, frequently use polygraphs to detect deception in social matters such as cheating, child abuse and theft.

The show is based on confrontations in which guests attempt to resolve issues with others that are significant in their lives, with such issues often related to family relationships, romantic relationships, sex, drugs and alcohol, among other issues. Alongside Kyle, the programme additionally featured psychotherapist Graham Stanier, who assisted the guests both during and after the show's broadcast, along with the use of a polygraph test ("lie detector") to determine the veracity of guests' claims, despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device.

along with the use of a polygraph test ("lie detector") to determine the veracity of guests' claims, despite contrasting scientific research against the use of such a device.

a judge described the programme as "human bear-baiting" during a prosecution of guests that had a violent altercation on the programme.

On 15 May 2019, the programme was officially cancelled after the death of a guest, whose appearance had been filmed the week before but not aired.

to the point that they are rarely cited as a source of legal evidence in countries such as the United States, and its use on the show has been criticised.

At one point to prove the legitimacy of the "lie detector" test Jeremy Kyle performed a live on stage test with the question, "Are you, or have you ever been a llama?" to which he replied yes, which was identified as a lie. 

"Kyle regularly claims the lie detector is 96 per cent accurate, 

 whereas a 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated it to be 61 per cent. Or not much better than chance."

 "The lie detector is designed to indicate whether someone is being deceptive. Practitioners claim its results have a high level of accuracy, although this is disputed."

On 9 May 2019, Hampshire Police found a man dead at an address in Portsmouth. He was confirmed to be 63-year-old Steve Dymond and the police said "the death is not being treated as suspicious". Dymond had been a guest on an episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show that had been filmed a week before his death and had not yet been aired. He took part in the show's polygraph test, which determined he was being unfaithful to his partner after he had initially denied doing so. The death was suspected to be a suicide

singularity wrote....

I am actually about to be banned so it has cut my time to argue short. This is a very rough incomplete draft I have up, and I will exand on my arguments when my ban is over. The one point I did not get to, but I want my opponent to see is coming is some new lie detector tests that utilize artificial intelligence to track eye movement and that seem accurate at detecting lies, as well as some other machines on the cutting edge of lie detection. Please excuse the look and feel of the rough draft below.

Eye-tracking offers several benefits over the polygraph: lower cost, 1/5th of the time to conduct, subjects do not need to be "hooked up" to anything, and it does not require qualified polygraph examiners to give the test.

Researchers have turned to looking for other ways to track deception. The most promising fields are fMRI and EEG. EEG and fMRI both look to the central nervous system to compare time and topography of activity in the brain for lie detection. While a polygraph detects changes in activity in the peripheral nervous system, fMRI has the potential to catch the lie at the 'source'. To better understand why fMRI, lie detection is the future of lie detection one must first understand how it works.

The legal system specifically would require many more studies on the negative false rate to decide if the absence of deception proves innocence. 

While fMRI studies on deception have claimed detection accuracy as high as 90% many have problems with implementing this style of detection. 

 While these studies are promising,

the lack of extensive research on the populations that would be most affected by fMRIs being admitted into the legal system is a huge drawback.

singularity wrote.....

2.

This debate is long. Like ridiculously long. It is 30,000 characters and 5 rounds. 2 weeks between each round. I like being allowed 2 weeks to take my time to post an argument. The problem with this debate is mostly the fact it might not get read because of it’s length and the fact this can be a boring topic to most people. I am going to combat this by attempting to be entertaining. This is what I do, because in order to win the votes of judges, we should also win their readership. People have limited time, and only so much dedicated to reading. I put this here so I can point people to it in other debates. This debate has a 30,000 character allowance so it is the perfect place holder for a few of my philosophies on how to debate on this format. I put this here, to encourage potential voters to read on. I promise the debate will not be boring. Well, I promise I will try my best to keep the topic fun and interesting.

singularity wrote.....

3.

There is more than one form of plagiarism. It is true that somebody can have a lot of citations to the same exact wikipedia page and yet true they plagiarized. Plagiarism can be on purpose or accidental, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed. Mostly for my opponent’s own good. Even unintentional plagiarism deserves a loss of conduct, because it needs to be discouraged. It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.

singularity wrote....

It is unfair at people who work hard it putting their arguments together. It harms the quality of debates on this site, and it harms my opponent and robs him of the knowledge and skills he can gain from researching and defending his beliefs himself.

Submitting someone's work as their own.

Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations (self-plagiarism).

re-writing someone's work without properly citing sources.

Using quotations but not citing the source.

Interweaving various sources together in the work without citing.

Citing some, but not all, passages that should be cited.

Melding together cited and uncited sections of the piece.

Providing proper citations, but failing to change the structure and wording of the borrowed ideas enough (close paraphrasing).

Inaccurately citing a source.

Relying too heavily on other people's work, failing to bring original thought into the text.

singularity wrote....

He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others.

singularity wrote...

He has committed plagiarism because most of his writing is just the quotations of others. Sometimes he uses his own words and other times he gives a direct quotation and then merely paraphrases the content he had just stolen. For examples

Cited quote

“assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate”

Here is Pro’s quote

“according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness. Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.

Now, according to the "national research council", Polygraph tests are ineffective, and the only "lie" is the claim that polygraph tests are 90% reliable.

the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.

singularity wrote....

“The American Psychological Association, which says there is no evidence a polygraph test can accurately detect lies”

Sources quote

“The American Psychological Association states "Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

singularity wrote...

Pro’s paraphrasing doesn’t even seem to make sense other than forcing us to reread the same exact information twice. This is known as paraphrasing plagiarism, and his stitching together of quotes from other writers is known as stitching plagiarism. https://www.grammar.com/what_types_of_plagiarism_exist

4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating

Also i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.

I may use other sources later on, if required.

singularity wrote...

4. My opponent should lose a conduct point I gave just a few examples of the paraphrasing but his whole argument is almost entirely quotes mixed with paraphrases of the quotes and no real argument that comes from him actually researching the information and formulating

singularity wrote...

My opponent wanted to debate the reliability of the test.

According to my dictionary reliable means “To be able to do what is needed” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/reliable

singularity wrote...

What is needed is a kind of general term that I guess the debate may revolve around, but I think the situation would determine what is needed from a lie detection test. Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth, and what is needed is not so much the results of the test, but for the test to strike fear into a person who is holding back information necessary to move an investigation forward.

Now the next report suggests that the only way lie detector tests may actually be useful, is due to the fact that the person being questioned, may actually believe there is no point in lying, and may provide an "admission".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#National_Academy_of_Sciences

 "The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions".

singularity wrote....

.Perhaps a detective would know that a polygraph is kind of a bullshit way to determine truth,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Effectiveness

In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."

singularity wrote...

7. Lie detector tests are better than 50/50 according to my opponent’s own concessions. My opponent cites a source that claims polygraphs are slightly higher than 50%. However he also cites a source that says the correct accuracy of the polygraph is 61%. SO which is it?

singularity wrote....

The citation is a big pain in the ass for me because wikipedia lists it as this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/sep/07/itv.television But the claim of 61% is not found in the article cited. I did track down a 1997 study on polygraphs that sent out surveys to 421 psychologists. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall, but it appears to be just a survey sent out to psychologists to ask their opinion on the accuracy of polygraph tests.

singularity wrote...

My opponent offered the just above 50% number. Again I can’t just click on the source provided to see how the number is derived. I have to follow a kinda road of sources to get to the original source. Which is an opinion a Judge Thomas based on his readings of several polygraph studies. Studies that are contradictory with a range of some claiming 85% accuracy and some claiming coin flip accuracy.

Though, a more recent 2002 study did suggest that Polygraphy has a higher than 50% success rate, but still well below 100%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Effectiveness

 In 2002, a review by the National Research Council found that, in populations "untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection". 

singularity wrote...

The supreme court ruling seems to be based less off of whether the test is accurate though and more on whether there was a scientific consensus on it’s accuracy. 

singularity wrote... 

The supreme court ruling occurred almost a quarter of a century ago, and it seems to be old news. It seems silly to think lie detection methods have not improved in a quarter of a century.

singularity wrote....

“There are a host of studies that place the reliability of polygraph tests at 85% to 90%.20 While critics of the polygraph argue that accuracy is much lower, even the studies cited by the critics place polygraph accuracy at 70%.

singularity wrote....

The Alford plea was finally made a thing when the prosecution of a case intimidated a person to plead guilty on very weak evidence, but he refused to admit guilt while pleading guilty. The state knowing they would lose the case went to the supreme court to legalize an the Alford plea.

In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Henry Alford had been indicted on a charge of first-degree murder in 1963. Evidence in the case included testimony from witnesses that Alford had said, after the victim's death, that he had killed the individual. Court testimony showed that Alford and the victim had argued at the victim's house. Alford left the house, and afterwards the victim received a fatal gunshot wound when he opened the door responding to a knock.
Alford was faced with the possibility of capital punishment if convicted by a jury trial. The death penalty was the default sentence by North Carolina law at the time, if two requisites in the case were satisfied: the defendant had to have pleaded not guilty, and the jury did not instead recommend a life sentence.

singularity wrote....

The same thing happened with polygraph tests.

 Singularity wrote...

The Alford plea was not the only time the despicable people attracted to that occupation were hypocritical. The same prosecutors who argued polygraphs were legit to lock people up went to trial against a man who was found with illegal drugs in his system. The gentleman claimed to be unaware of the fact he ingested drugs, arguing a mindset defense. However since the polygraph was now being used against prosecutors these unethical people that used them prior bitched that the polygraph was a pseudo science. Here is a few quotes from the dissenting judge in the case my opponent cited with the 50% number.

The principal charge against the respondent in this case was that he had knowingly used methamphetamine. His principal defense was “innocent ingestion”; even if the urinalysis test conducted on April 7, 1992, correctly indicated that he did ingest the substance, he claims to have been unaware of that fact. The results of the lie detector test conducted three days later, if accurate, constitute factual evidence that his physical condition at that time was consistent with the theory of his defense and inconsistent with the theory of the prosecution. The results were also relevant because they tended to confirm the credibility of his testimony. Under Rule 707, even if the results of the polygraph test were more reliable than the results of the urinalysis, the weaker evidence is admissible and the stronger evidence is inadmissible.